No Excuse for Incivility

This
is a transcript of a radio address broadcast for the Center for Public Justice
on KDCR radio in Sioux Center, Iowa.

The vice presidential debate raised many important questions
about social equity, foreign policy management and the value of human life. Both
Vice President Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan had moments when they explained
their views passionately and well.

But for those who don’t follow politics and policy very
closely, tuning into the debate was probably an unpleasant experience. Biden
displayed an aggressive, bullying style that often made a genuine discussion
impossible. He greeted Ryan’s points with mocking laughter, and, by one count,
interrupted his opponent more than 80 times. Ryan maintained his composure, but
sometimes seemed at a loss on how to respond.

Those who watched the debate saw two prepared and
knowledgeable men. They saw essential issues raised. Yet they also saw some of
the things they dislike most about politics, particularly rudeness and
incivility.

No party or ideology, of course, has a corner on civility. Rudeness
is a staple of cable news and the Internet—so common we hardly even notice it. Politicians
shout out attacks during the State of the Union address or run hyperbolic
attack ads against each other. When it
comes to incivility, partisanship can lead to a kind of blindness. We tend to resent the incivility of those we
disagree with and excuse or ignore the incivility of our own political
side.

It is true that democracy was designed for disagreement. Conflicting
views are often clarifying. And
sometimes a confrontational approach is called for. Civility is not a synonym
for hollowed-out principles or lukewarm commitments.

But, as I’ve argued before, there are several reasons that
tone and countenance matter in a democracy.

One is practical. In the long run, contempt and anger can
diminish the appeal of a party or cause.
Effective persuasion is reasonable, judicious and sober rather than aggressive,
abrasive and abusive. “If you would win a man to your cause,” said Abraham
Lincoln, “first convince him that you are his sincere friend. Therein is a drop of honey that catches the heart,
which, say what you will, is the great high road to his reason.”

But civility depends on more than utilitarian
considerations. More fundamentally it
has to do with reflecting a view of human persons and their inherent
dignity. It means treating people with
respect and good manner regardless of the view they might hold.

And the decline of civility in politics is not only
unpleasant, it is dangerous. Mutual
contempt makes democratic deliberation more difficult. It complicates coalition building and the
process of compromise. It both reflects and contributes to extreme
polarization. A democracy may be designed for disagreement, but it is damaged
by disdain.

Incivility is not new in American politics. It has been as
bad, or worse, at other times. But in
every time, it has made the work of democracy more difficult. We have every reason to expect incivility in
politics. But that does not mean we
should excuse it.

—Michael J. Gerson is nationally syndicated columnist who
appears twice weekly in The Washington Post and is the author of Heroic
Conservatism (2007) and the co-author of City of Man: Religion and
Politics in a New Era (2010).

Capital Commentary is a weekly current-affairs publication of the Center for Public Justice. Published since 1996, it is written to encourage the pursuit of justice. Commentaries do not necessarily represent an official position of the Center for Public Justice but are intended to help advance discussion.